Physical Impact and Emotional Distress Damages
Published .
The general concept
Some legal systems require a person seeking damages for emotional harm caused by negligence to have been physically struck or touched. That is called a physical-impact rule. The concern behind the rule is to distinguish a serious, provable injury from ordinary upset, grief, or worry that can be difficult to measure.
How Maryland applies it
Maryland does not require physical impact in every negligence claim for emotional-distress damages. The focus is whether the distress was proximately caused by the wrongful conduct and is supported by a physical injury or symptoms, or is otherwise capable of objective determination. A person who was physically injured may seek emotional-distress damages that flow from the injury. A person claiming emotional harm without physical impact generally needs evidence that makes the harm objectively ascertainable; a bare statement that an event was upsetting may not suffice. Special rules can apply to bystander, intentional-tort, and wrongful-death claims. A witness to an event does not automatically have a claim simply because the event was distressing. The relationship, proximity, nature of the conduct, proof of harm, and the particular cause of action all matter.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Green v. North Arundel Hospital Association, Inc., 366 Md. 597 (2001).; Beynon v. Montgomery Cablevision Limited Partnership, 351 Md. 179 (1998).; Hoffman v. Stamper, 385 Md. 1 (2005).